About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 91 (627 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 36, Washington 23, John Boehner 9, South Carolina 9, Texas 8, Fred Guterl 8, Mick Mulvaney 7, America 7, California 6, New York 6, Mulvaney 5, Hawaii 5, John 4, Oregon 4, China 4, United States 3, Obama 3, Nancy Pelosi 3, Joe Biden 3, Blumenauer 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists.  

    January 2, 2013
    7:00 - 10:00am EST  

7:00am
at 10:00 with one-minute speeches of legislative business at noon. no bills are on the schedule. the members of the new york legislation are calling for members to reconsider the decision to adjourn the congress without voting on the hurricane sandy relief package. the 112 congress ends thursday at noon. >> on this vote the boats are 257. the motion is [video clip] >> the motion is therefore on the table. host: last night the u.s. house passed a deal to avert the so called "fiscal cliff". good morning and welcome to "washington journal" this wednesday, january 2, 2013. we would like to hear your thoughts on a bill that passed both houses of congress.
7:01am
here are the numbers to call -- you can also find us online. send us a tweet. or join the conversation on facebook. you can also e-mail us. the "washington times has this headline --
7:02am
and in the washington post -- we would like to hear what you think about this bill. we will be digging into it more, going over some of the details. if to give us some perspective is pete, a staff writer with the the hill newspaper. thanks for being with us. guest: hi. host: they talk about the house republicans balked at first. what was the sticking point? guest: you used to just have to
7:03am
keep taxes low. but with the debt creeping up more and more, it is increasingly coming to play in our republicans think. when they first look at the deal yesterday the senate passed, they're looking at it when the cbo scores came out and the source said this is a bunch of new debt because we are letting people off the hook on texas and a little bit of spending cuts and that is not what they wanted and it is not the balance to deal they were seeking. for a bunch of hours, it caused them all to say it can we amend this or send it back. the whole time of the clock is ticking. in the end, the timing and the tax argument one out. it started casting it as just let secure this tax be subject. they want to secure tax rates for people, so let's hope to turn this into an title and format focus on the debt more in the coming months. they did ask their members, if
7:04am
we brought up amendments to this, would it pass? it was not clear they would really pass. in the end, after a bunch of hours of that, they decided let's just go with this. by the early evening they started putting up the process for just passing the senate bill as is. host: the headline in the hill -- we see a picture of speaker john boehner there on the front page. how did he factor into this and what was his message to members? guest: he had it tough because he's the one who will eventually need to say he got something done. no one wants to be on a book for the tax increase. they called it eclipsed for reasons. the tax increase on middle class americans was the biggest part of the cliffs. it was the biggest threat to gdp growth of if you let the taxes go up. so that is a tough position he's
7:05am
in. he is facing comment and criticism from conservatives saying don't pass this, because this is just more debt. so it's a tough balancing act. in the end, he has said for his role speakership and he wants the house to work its will. convenientt's a good way to put it at times. and taken back up and say let us see what the house does aunt clara at the house do what it wants. and you're inevitably split with republicans and you let it go through that way. early in the process he voted and walk away and they were gone. during debate last night, many democrats showed up to debate the measure if and said they were happy, but that the bill was not perfect, but they were glad. many republicans, we did not see them getting up to talk about it. it's an all or day for them. host: a tweet --
7:06am
what does this mean for the power dynamic among republicans? guest: i am one of those people who always says people get accused of playing chess all the time, but sometimes they're just playing checkers. eric cantor is much more the kind of guy, he has been very vocal about the need to trim debt. so it's logical that he would vote against it. they did wait until it passed. so they had some spots ability to their speakers and their leadership position. in the end, they know this has to go through, because we are out of time. john boehner votes for it more as a symbolic thing. he said yesterday if we cannot find a republican votes to amend this, i will just go for it. he feels a sense of responsibility to accept a deal that's coming down. host: you have a piece on the
7:07am
blog that says house members have a message to speaker ehner -- what is the latest on that? guest: i think that is all we will see today. the house and senate are back in today. the senate back into thinking they might get a sandy relief bill. what happened yesterday was a rare occurrence where you had a bunch of republicans and democrats to show up at the last minute after the cliff vote and they were really upset. delma had about a minute to talk. a lot of them used strong language, saying the speaker should be ashamed of himself for deciding we are done voting in the 112th congress. that may change. it may not, but it is something to look for. is there enough pressure on him to do something else? it goes back to the spending. we are left with a situation where republicans are feeling
7:08am
they have lost everything. we delayed the cuts in the sequester. we have higher taxes on the wealthy, all these things they don't want, and they're being asked to spend billions more on a sandy relief bill that they think is maybe premature, that fema has some money to deal with sandy. many members from both sides of the aisle were using strong language against john boehner last night. we will have to see today if they change their mind and decide to put a couple bill. if people will continue using strong language. the: he's one of journalists that has been working around the clock on this holiday. thanks for joining us. we would like to hear what you think about the deal that was struck on the fiscal cliff. let's go to lewis in tennessee on our democrat line. good morning. -- lois. caller: republicans would until
7:09am
the last-minute every time to vote. the ones who voted for the deal are looking to be reelected. they know the public are getting sick and tired of this do nothing congress. for john brenan and them not to vote to help the people with the sandy relief, but they would send money overseas to the wars, something needs to be done. people, wake-up and vote them out the next go-around. host: let's hear from debbie in houston, texas, a republican. good morning. caller: hi. this is another one where they held our middle class hostage. i don't understand what the democrats don't understand about not spending any more. all we do is spend, spend, spend. the government is too large. if people don't start realizing all the failed programs we have, all we're doing is just throwing money away. the other thing is i am very disappointed in john boehner.
7:10am
i really think that he should have forced the hand of the democrats to go back to the bill, because this is 3 and 1/2 years now we have heard tax reform. we have heard cut spending, we have heard they know they have to work on this. this is both parties. they both know they were supposed to be working on this stuff. once again, the last-minute, holding us hostage. the democrats are playing with us. it has to stop. i should be on social security. who can afford to be on social security? you want to raise the social security age, who is going to give us jobs? what is wrong with these people? stop the spending and put in a budget. host: let's hear from jeff, an independent texas caller. caller: good morning.
7:11am
i look at this whole fiscal cliff debacle by the republicans. i think that the term fiscal cliff was used by the media to make it more dramatic than it really is. i don't believe there should be much government intrusion. ever since we had the federal reserve that has been constantly printing money, borrowing money, causing inflation. most of what our taxes go to our for paying interest on the debt. over $16 trillion. none of the politicians ever talk about that. the partisanship between republicans and democrats is silly. it is like watching republicans and democrats, it is like watching two drunks argue over a bar tab on the titanic. eventually, all this money will keep inflating and everything will keep rising.
7:12am
eventually, we will not be able to pay for it. the only sensible thing to do is have the effect of having low interest rates, try to balance the dollar and stop spending more money we don't have, and let people take care of themselves, and let the states take the role the federal government has been doing. we always have more and welfare. we have a growing police state and our rights are disappearing. as soon as people stop voting for republicans and democrats who are nothing but criminals, the better. host: and from this, the term fiscal cliff originally came from ben bernanke. let's hear what president obama said last night before heading back to his vacation in hawaii. [video clip] >> more than 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses under this law will not see
7:13am
their income tax rise. millions of families will continue to receive tax breaks to help raise their kids and send them to college. companies will continue to receive tax credits for research they do and investments they make and the clean energy jobs they create. 2 million americans out of work that are out there looking every day will continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as they are actively looking for job. but i think we all recognize this lot is just one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy and brought an opportunity for everybody. -- this law. the fact is the deficit is still too high. we are still investing too little in the things that we need for the economy to grow as fast as it should. that is why speaker john boehner and i originally tried to negotiate a larger agreement that would put the country on a path to paying down its debt while also putting americans
7:14am
back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges for, and providing investments in areas like education and job-training. unfortunately, there just was not enough support or time for that kind of large agreement in a lame-duck session of congress. that failure comes with a cost as the mess in nature of the process over the last several weeks has made business more uncertain and consumers less confident. host: that is president obama making remarks at the white house last night. here's what house speaker john boehner said in a statement --
7:15am
we would like to hear what you think about the passage of the fiscal cliff bill. john is a democrat in columbus, ohio. good morning, your honor the air. are on the air. caller: good morning. these people are fighting the president because of the fact that he got back in office and a lot of people are mad about that and it seems the more he tries to do, the more they try to fight him. it really makes things difficult and makes the whole country suffer, because they're not focusing on trying to come together with him to get something done. they are too busy fighting in and it does not make sense. host: the house did pass this. caller: >> but look how long it took for them to pass it.
7:16am
there were busy fighting him. host: what do you think about the details of it? caller: it's fine, but they need to keep fighting him. that's crazy. host: let's look at some details of the fiscal cliff bill. it permanently extends the bush- era tax cuts for people making up to $400,000 or couples making up to -- on facebook --
7:17am
three of our followers like that on our facebook page, where you can weigh in and give your opinion. patty is on the republican line. caller: hello. before the also called tax cuts for the rich -- that is what you guys and the media called it for years and years -- now we find out it is a big tax cut for the middle class. in 2001 me and my husband looked at our business and when you
7:18am
added up the federal income tax, the minnesota state income tax, tax, one of us was working for the government, either local or federal. we decided we were not dealing with a corrupt entity and people lost their jobs when we sold the business. now it punishes hardworking people. the last caller, the democrat with low information, he does not even know that it is fiscal cliff and not physical cliff. they don't know capital gains tax, sales tax. they never produced anything pervasive with one hand in their pocket and their other hand out. now america is punishing the hard-working and rewarding chalazion, low inflation voters that keep reelecting these democrats that are spending us into oblivion. i have a suggestion. i wish c-span will get one host
7:19am
and hostess that is a conservative. i can tell none of you are. you all voted democrat. because when somebody brings up a pertinent point that you hear on talk radio that's factual, can you guys are completely unaware of it. when i call in and you have a liberal guests on and i make some really good points, if you guys just gloss over it. you don't. up. .- you don't follow up the only follow up with attacks on conservatives. i know for dam sure you voted for barack obama and so did every other one of you hosts and hostesses. you cannot recognize a republican from a democrat. you let the democrats call in and bash republicans on the republican line and use it there and say nothing. host: i'm sorry you feel that way. we remain unbiased and c-span. we welcome all perspectives and
7:20am
we have a range of personalities and perspectives among our hosts. billy, we are here to hear from you and make sure we get the chance to hear what you have to say. let's go to harry from los angeles on our independent line. caller: good morning. while everybody just hates everybody, don't they? i am thinking, if this country of ours is so great, if we are so smart, if there's a problem and there is an issue, you go to someone who can help you with that issue. if i ever broken leg, i go to a doctor and i don't go to a senator. why not bring the greatest and best minds together to sit down and say this is how we can get this done? nobody cared that these people
7:21am
are fighting. you have to decides, so you have to go to smarter people. you have to say, we need experts to take a look at this. and then they will find a way. it is the big shiny object they are putting in front of us for something else. we should be worried about that it costs more to elect an t they make.n what the why does it cost more? because it is worth it. i'm ashamed that they left everything gets to this, but it on purpose. host: sounds like you are frustrated with the process. what do you think about the content of the bill the house has passed? caller: what you brought up here
7:22am
now is all peanuts to me. we -- the very principles that we have here that we based the united states on, we have been tossing them away little by little, slowly, for what? how do you tell people who are going to other countries to die so that country can have the right to vote and we here -- something is not right. something is backwards. why >? what's the reason? who is getting a bigger slice of pie? host: let's look at what the fiscal cliff deal means for those making over $400,000. patty was upset about what this
7:23am
law means for the higher income brackets. if you make above $400,000 or a couple that makes above $450,000 -- the washington post looks at how this impacts taxpayers based on what attracted you are in. it looks at the income level and what percentage of taxpayers will be affected and which percentage will get an increase in taxes.
7:24am
let's hear from mike in kansas city, kansas, a democrat. caller: hi. this does not make sense. republicans are simply angry because obama won reelection. me being a conservative democrat, as republicans, what are you doing? you are playing with people's money. it does not get any deeper than that. understand you lost the election from a presidential standpoint, but in the end, we need to get money going, get the country going. we need truth job creation. republicans are so hellbent on punishing any state or the people or demographics of people who did not vote for mitt romney, they will do anything they can to punish anybody. this is a fiscal cliff. you are playing with people's money. for the true republicans, if you understand how i believe, and
7:25am
you need to get the party back in order. my being a conservative democrat, you lost my vote. you want to push ideology that does not work. the majority of the american people did not vote for it. wake up and worked for the people. you are playing with people's money. host: would you have voted for the fiscal cliff? caller: yes, i would. we need to get the people's money going. we need to keep the country going. if republicans don't understand that, they are going to face consequences. they are going to lose seats in the house and the senate. i am a conservative democrat. republicans don't get their act together and start to -- and stop playing politics with people's money, you are going to lose. host: we will have members of congress, one of them on a little end of the spectrum, a democrat from oregon,
7:26am
congressman earl blumenauer. then later, a conservative, mick mulvaney, a republican from south carolina. they both voted against the fiscal cliff deal that passed the house last night. we will hear from them. our next caller is john in conyers, georgia, on our republican line. caller: yes, i agree with what he was just saying, but it's not republicans and democrats. it is the congress itself that is playing with our money. it is president's current and past that have played with our money. greed of the politicians up their that have been playing with our money. they used a situation that we just have to scare people, to where we have almost non- reaction on both sides to push and fight each other and then use a bill setting we have done
7:27am
this as a pressure valve to release the, so that everybody's adrenalin falls out, so they can point blame and maintain their positions of power and their ability to spend money and going hither and thither in the arm. -- and yond. congress was never meant to be a full-time job. it was supposed to be part-time. for someone to be up there six years and get full retirement, that's crazy. they have passed laws and regulations we have to follow that they are exempt from. all that should be a wash. if they pass a law, they have to be hundred just like everyone else. there should not be exemptions for congress. host: the financial times shows the highlights of what passed congress on january 1. the headline --
7:28am
julia in broken arrow, oklahoma, independent. caller: thanks for having me on. this is what i wanted to say. we need change, no matter what. some of the house members, a few democrats, and a ton of republicans. i followed this whole ordeal closely. last night i watched them vote. i was so excited, i cannot wait. i'm laid off. i worked for a big company that out of state. this big company gave me my
7:29am
layoff notice on december 12. i had a star record with them, earned 200 something thousand dollars in one year through that company. i was completely unaware that i would be laid off. it had a lot to do with this bill. i don't work for walmart. i don't want to say the company i worked for. but walmart is big. and aroundes turnaro and use food stamps at wal-mart. so walmart is barely paying anything out. big businesses say they don't want taxes raised. they are whispering into the ears of the house representatives. it's not fair that the big businesses have all the control in this country. even the company that laid me off, i was making $35,000 a year without any work violations of, yet the corporate office out of my state hired three more
7:30am
employees. i'm on unemployment now and i desperately need help. this is the only way i can get it. the big courts have too much power to hurt people and families. so i'm glad it passed, in other words. host: in "usa today," it says --
7:31am
tony joins us from michigan on our democratic line. good morning. what part of michigan are you calling from? caller: corona. i'm a democrat and i feel the democrats look out for the working class people more, but we need to get rid of this republican versus democrat clash and they need to start drinking for the people who put them in office. about this spending, raising the debt limit, and all that, these people have to remember who got us into two wars and how much that raised our debt that we will be paying for for quite awhile. worst thing about the wars is the loss of life we have had of our young men and women over there when we should not have been there. host: what is in the bill that
7:32am
you approve of? caller: i'm glad it did not raise the taxes on middle-class hardworking people. middle-class people are the ones that are the backbone of this country. that lady from minnesota that had to sell her company, they probably made millions of dollars off the backbones of them working-class people. so to blame the democrats because she had to sell her business, that is a bunch of crap. they made their money. there probably are living high off the hobg. the middle class people deserve breaks for change. the only way we are ever point to get this straightened out is campaign reform. we cannot have millionaires running the country anymore. we need regular people running this country. so that's why i am glad it passed and i think it will help our economy. we need to be behind president,
7:33am
whether you are a democrat or republican, and keep our economy moving in the right direction. host: we have some tweets -- the wars in iraq and afghanistan mentioned just now, here's a piece in the paper -- some other stories in the news, hillary clinton, secretary of state, we are seeing some updates on her condition and what is going on for her. we will look at that in just a moment to see how she is staring.
7:34am
but there's a piece by parker in the washington post, more of a conservative writer -- so that is in the washington post today. for the latest on how hillary clinton is doing, we will look at "usa today" story that says she's getting blood thinners for the blood clot. her doctors are expecting her to be released from hospital to make a full recovery. we are asking what you think
7:35am
about house passage of the fiscal cliff bill, 257-167. john is a republican in hot springs village, arkansas. caller: good morning and happy new year. basically, the way this is impacting the personally is the income tax increase for the wealthy, that does not affect me. the unemployment benefits extension, that does not affect me. the payroll tax going back up, which is it should go into their social security account in the first place, that does not affect me. the tax credits for energy companies, grain companies, education, and investments and things, that does not affect me. i am a retired person on social security with a pension, i have
7:36am
pla's that i am not yet tapping into. the things that did affect me is my wife is using medical, so that affects us. i think the super committee has done the best job they could have done. that would have been equal amounts of tax increases, everyone getting an increase, plus the sequestration. basically, what we got was a $4 trillion tax increase with no balance. and the president calls it an investment. all the democrats talk about is investing, but there's never return on our investment. if we were investing, ruby
7:37am
making money, but we are constantly losing and adding to the debt. -- if we were investing, we would be making money. there should be no money. attached to money one amendment to the bill last night should have been the balanced budget amendment. if they had balanced the budget, we would be ok. thank you. host: dimension your typing on medicare. this is in the new york times, it says -- peggy is up next from arkansas on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm in the central part of
7:38am
arkansas. i'm very unhappy with the way things have been going a long time. i don't if you are red, yellow, black, or white, i am sick of people calling in about the race of the president. i think that we have been sold up salt creaek. what would happen if -- i'm sorry, i'm a first-time caller and i'm very upset -- what would happen when the government completely breaks the back of the working people that pay taxes that feeds the port and makes the rich richer? the backs of the poor working people that are willing to get out there and work hard for a living, for their religious beliefs, their conviction, and their morality, the government is destroying that. host: you mentioned the working-
7:39am
class, the fiscal cliff bill extends the bush-era tax rates for everyone making under $400,000. do you agree with that? caller: i don't, because my taxes are going up anyway. i am 60 years old and single. i run a firm by myself. i cannot find any help, because everybody gets food stamps and fixed income housing and their utilities are paid. i am single with health problems try to make a living and not after depend on the government. there are people that do have to depend on the government. i'm willing to help those people. host: why are your taxes going up? caller: obamacare, taxes on gas, taxes on groceries. if you sit down and figure out all the taxes that were done, we are taxed 15 different ways on
7:40am
one thing. host: let's go to sabrina in new york city on our democrat line. good morning. hi, sabrina. we lost her. let's move on to david in crawfordville, indiana, on our republican line. caller: i don't believe any of this of politicians tell you nowadays. the president has not flown back to hawaii to finish his vacation. why don't they put their money where their mouth is and give up some of their wealth. you know congressmen are well. i would like to see them have to determine it's like the president. we need to get the bureaucrats out of there. they don't care about you. i'm a poor man try to find work. i still not found work and my stuff is run out and i've had to move back in with my grandmother and take care of her. that's not right. they had a four years to create jobs. the majority of its is on the president. if he cannot get off his butt and talk to the people. he's got to send his vice-
7:41am
president out to talk to people. he's lying all around, don't you realize that police money and raises the debt ceiling? if you make $10,000 a year, they don't care, they just throw you under the bus. i recollect in the constitution it said we the people, not tweet the government. they need to get their nose out of business and let them run their businesses. they don't have to dictate to you what you need. host: a tweet -- john in massachusetts, a democrat, good morning. caller: this has been planned for years, basically. what they are doing is they are bankrupting, trying to bankrupt the middle-class. the rich are getting away with
7:42am
murder. nobody is going to jail. what happened to the rule of law? you have two parties basically committing treason against the american people. they are filling their pockets of with people's tax money. they are letting corporations run rampant all over the world. they're not paying any taxes. the first thing the democrats and republicans blame our teachers, firefighters, the middle class, the poor, and its wall street, think tanks, who plan how to lie to the american people and say they are helping us. nonprofit organizations that's in here and say they're helping the public, but they are sticking the money in their pockets. what happened to the roll call? what happens to these people going to jail when they're taking the taxpayers' money or selling people faulty products based they are supposed to help the american people? -- what happened to rule of law?
7:43am
criminals at the federal reserve's funding both sides of the war to make a profit. people need to wake up and have a 380 man march in washington and get the criminals out of washington. host: here's the front page of the washington post -- of the new york post -- we can take a look at a couple other headlines from around the nation, courtesy of the newseum -- an image upped eric cantor. and below that, vice-president joe biden negotiating on behalf
7:44am
of the white house. and a headline from the chicago tribune -- and in the boston globe -- randy is in wisconsin on our republican line. caller: good morning. your question today should be "the house passes the senate bill that the senate finally sent to the house." and president obama going out there to say the congress asked to give the money for what they have spent. we have two months and the president will come out and say i need more money for the budget, it's all done. so the president will be asking for more money, but he cannot briblame the congress. this washington is spending our money, spinning things around on
7:45am
us, and just going hog wild. we're not after your president, to the guy from georgia. we are with your president, but we want to get everything in order and have washington quit spending money they don't have. thank you, c-span. host: let's look apsa editorials and our beds in the pages of the newspapers. in the washington post --
7:46am
and another opinion piece that says -- and another piece, this with a different twist, looking at the cabinet of president obama in
7:47am
his second term. we will be watching on c-span, cabinet choices of the toinistration in the show's come. this is tim from kentucky on our democrat line. caller: how are you? i have always thought about the fiscal cliff and the high taxes. i don't agree with that. i have -- this is my opinion. you cannot blame president obama for every mess-up of every other
7:48am
president we have had. host: what do you think about the resolution on this fiscal cliff deal? do you appreciate the president's role or the role republicans played? caller: sort of. of at akind standstill about it. i just think we are trillions of dollars in debt. i don't understand it. host: we will be hearing from members of congress coming up next on "washington journal." callers will be able to get some more perspective. coming next, a democratic lawmaker, congressman heck earl blumenauer of oregon. later on conservative republican mick mulvaney of south carolina. they both voted against the
7:49am
fiscal cliff bill that passed the house late last night. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> i primarily want the house and the senate. i used to work in the senate, so and i look at that every now and then especially if there's something important going on. coverage of the floor and c-span has it. c-span is where you can find something that's really important going on that's not otherwise covered. i listen to c-span radio in my car sometimes. >> bob watches c-span on directv. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider.
7:50am
[video clip] >> you don't always find many newspaper editors of any era increasing investigative reporting. it's not just economics. it is the discomfort that investigative reporting often causes in the newsroom, because it is troublesome. it is that more than that, but if you are going to ruffle the status of someone powerful, that death of people complaining to the publishers and there are stories of that happening to the years. in the 1970's and almost all of our careers to work for people who were really upright in that area and let the chips fall where they may. >> a pulitzer prize-winning investigative team will take your calls, e-mails, and tweets this weekend. they began collaborative work in the 1970's and have written eight books together. want to live on sunday at noon
7:51am
eastern on "book tv" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: who representative earl blumenauer, a member of the ways and means budget committee. thanks for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: why did you vote against the bill on the fiscal cliff last night? guest: it represented a lost opportunity. we have been arguing over these points. most people recognize policies are not sustainable. we have a growing and aging population. we will need to not only raise more revenue, but we have to change how we do business. having the circumstances around the cliff could be expiring provisions with the sequestration and conclusion to congress was an opportunity to do something more substantial. instead, all we did was to take this down the road, and overused term, but that's what we did.
7:52am
we did not address the debt ceiling, which should not have been a part of any major agreement. we are going to be in the middle of that for the next two months. we have taken a situation where the american public were focused on the big picture and the president had leverage and we settled for a third of the loaf or a quarter of the loaf. we did not change how we do business and we institutionalized this political hostage-taking for the new congress that starts tomorrow. host: a tweet -- guest: i think that is a fair approximation. be had three cliffs facing us, because the government operations run out in march. we have already gone over the cliff as far as the debt ceiling is concerned. you can horsing around a little.
7:53am
you can use a little sleight of hand, but the clock is ticking. we are going to have to address it. and then the sequestration, which was postponed for two months. it's going to be a troubling time. and there are some real changes in my republican colleagues coming forward that does not augur well for a smooth transition in the house. host: uc the debates that will happen in march regarding the fiscal cliff and sequestration as an opportunity? some of the heavy lifting you wish had gotten done? guest: yes, it is not going to be as effective, as i said, because we have had a congress that has gone through and stubbed its toe, bloodied its nose and maybe a few people learned something. we also had a large number of people who were leaving that might be able to not be looking over their shoulder about being lugared in a primary.
7:54am
20% of the republicans who voted yes on a proposal last night are leaving congress. host: if you would like to join the conversation and talk with congressman blumenauer -- let's look at some of the details of the fiscal cliff legislation that passed the house and senate yesterday. do you agree with all those
7:55am
items? guest: all those items needed to be addressed, but look at the details. for example, the doc fix is lunacy. is something nobody wants to have. 27% reduction in medicare payments. but instead of addressing its trade on -- and it is something that we fix every year -- we are going to torment medicare providers for another year who are apprehensive. there is a permanent patch for the alternative minimum tax, but this is a attacks that needs to be fundamentally reformed or repeal -- a tax. the scoring mavens' decided it did not cost us anything to make the pact permanent, because we are going to do it every year. why should we not take this complex, unfair tax and
7:56am
eliminated altogether? it is part of these details that institutionalizes the arm wrestling and the horsetrading. over the course of the next few days we will find out all whole bunch of other things that got stuffed in there by staff of various senate offices that joe biden and mitch mcconnell never talked about. do you really think they got into the into thehow we a are going to treat run excise taxes for the virgin islands and puerto rico or expense and certain movie and entertainment costs? i think not. i think we will find there is more like that. in their that none of us were aware of on the floor of the house last night. host: john is joining us, lexington, kentucky, on our democrat line. caller: good morning. a couple quick thoughts that are
7:57am
low more foundational. one of them had to do with there is a sense that there was a mandate on the rpart of the republicans to big oil to push what they did in the house. one of them has to do with i don't think the american public understands how congressional districts are apportioned and [inaudible] guest: i think he was calling to use the term gerrymandered. that is a significant factor. for years i have advocated an independent, nonpartisan who redistricting commission. we could actually established that on a federal level. there are states now that are making i -- taking it out of the hands of politicians and instead let the voters picked the politicians. this has been going on for years in iowa.
7:58am
my former colleague, jim leach and i had written about that. it is happening in california, arizona, and even a little in florida. that is part of the problem, because democrats, nationally, got more than 1 million more votes than republicans who ran for the house of representatives. yet they come into this with a 35-vote margin. there are some areas where in north carolina there were more votes for democrats than republicans, but there are only 27% of the representatives are democrats. that is part of the problem. it confuses the notion about mandates. after all, the allwon decisively. -- the president won decisively. the senate pickup ground.
7:59am
it does not sound like much of a national mandate to continue the policies of the republicans over the last decade or so. host: david is our next caller in ohio, republican. caller: good morning. being a regular person on a budget, i can only get the things i can pay for. i would love to be able to buy erraris or newr ou houses or all kinds of things they would love to have. due to my budget, i am not able to do that. the president kept saying he wanted a balanced approach to this problem, which i agree you had to increase revenue. but you also have to address the spending. when you don't have the money to
8:00am
do good things you guys want to, you've got to start cutting back. $1 for every spending cut, you got $41 worth of revenue. if i did that in my if i did that in my house, eventually the bills are going to come due. my question to you guys is when will we use common sense and say we cannot afford this anymore? guest:, i agree and disagree with david. first of all, there are a lot of things we could do to reduce spending, and republicans and democrats would agree. do we need 3 separate the delivery systems for nuclear weapons that we will never use, to not need and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars?
8:01am
i think we could end welfare for large agricultural businesses, provide more support for farmers and ranchers who are the family operation -- these are things where there is the pork and i have been frustrated by the ideological debate and not concentrating on areas where we could improve service and reduce spending. do we need to spend more on our security, cia establishment? we spend more on that than russia spends on its entire military budget. 4 million people with security clearance? it is a series of bureaucracies that is out of control. one area where david is wrong and the government is different from a family, but maybe in a
8:02am
sense it is the same -- if david's family were in a situation with a catastrophic ms or his children were not -- illness, or his children were unemployed, i think david would use a credit card to make sure that his kids were not out on the street. that is what the government has done here. unemployment insurance, this helps to stimulate the economy and keeps people in their homes. it is what we do in tough times. the key going forward is restoring balance in doing things that republicans and democrats agree on. 135,000 u.s. soldiers overseas over 1000 cases?
8:03am
i'm sure we could reduce those expenditures. host: here is a tweet congressman blumenauer put out, riding -- traveling to washington, where a poor got plan is worse than the cliff, which would force the tax and program reform america needs to. you can share your thoughts on twitter. here is one from tpm about sequestration -- there are no cuts, will we ever get a smaller government. can you talk about what sequestration means? >> sequestration was the price republicans extracted to not wreck the global economy by defaulting on the national debt, which pays for spending that congress has already approved and in many cases done, and by the way, those were republican
8:04am
congress's fighting two wars for the first time in history without paying for them. the sequestration was automatic cuts that would happen if we could not reach a grand bargain. this has been delayed two months, but it is still looming over us. the notion over whether or not we will have smaller government, people need to look and what actually happened. we have already committed to over $1 trillion spending reductions, and if you look at agencies like parks service and veterans affairs, these will have serious consequences already. the notion, somehow, if we are not adjusting the rate of increase there is not a cut is lunacy. talk to senior citizens, the average social security
8:05am
recipient getting $14,400 a year. if inflation is not adjusted, do you think that is not a cut? it is a cut in their standard of living in their ability to maintain their home and health. we are getting a smaller government. what has happened over the last 40 years is republicans have decided to bar all and spend instead of tax and spend, and we have exceeded revenues 2.7% a year. this is a small step towards moving with balance. it is not enough, and we need to change the way we do business. host: congressman earl blumenauer sits on the ways and means and budget committee, and it is in his ninth term.
8:06am
he will be returning to congress not just today, but as a new member tomorrow. let's go to paul. arkansas. independent. caller: i was wondering what happened to the three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, and we have the biggest military in the world, and we spend more on defense than the top 13. people all over the world that we do not need -- we are not an american empire, the world's police force. we could pull those people home and be spending money at home instead of overseas. as far as medicare, it is easily fixed. let me repeat, it is easily fixed. you have more people buy into
8:07am
medicare at younger ages. 50 and above, you could bring them in at $200, $300 a month, and shore up medicare. we are paying contractors in the military 3-to-10 times what we are paying and that is really what we are into in these wars, making money. host: paul, we will throw your comments to earl blumenauer, what you think about the fiscal cliff deal? caller: i think we should of gone over the cliff. the real fiscal cliff is the deficit. guest: paul makes some important points. there are, without question, opportunities for us to readjust military spending. we spend almost half of the
8:08am
world's military budget, and a bunch of those other countries, canada, great britain, france, germany, they are allies of ours. we do not need to have the most expensive military in the world by far. we could scale it down a little bit, still be the most forceful nation on earth. in terms of medicare, there are opportunities to adjust spending going forward. i come from the state of oregon, where we have made an agreement with the federal government in exchange for flexibility in administering the medicare program. we are going to save the federal government billions of dollars over the next 10 years. the governor, who is a physician that has been working on this for decades, has
8:09am
developed a program that if applied for medicare programs around the country, to pay for value instead of volume, dealing with the whole patient, accelerating the reforms in the affordable care act, it would save over $1 trillion for the federal government over the next 10 years. we do not need to have the most expensive and least efficient health-care system of the major countries, and we could do it by taking principles that are being applied now in some states and are part of that health-care reform. this is within our capacity and what we should have focused on. host: "the washington times" has this headline --
8:10am
let's look at what nancy pelosi have to say about passage of the bill. here is a statement her office . yet you voted against it. guest: i have a great deal of respect for what and nancy pelosi did, fighting for principles that would not be there but for her focus and the determination of the democratic caucus. there are a number of provisions that i care deeply about i have been the leading sponsor of extending renewable energy, for
8:11am
example. what, i guess, is missing here in this equation is being able to actually implement the reform. i think the work that leader nancy pelosi did, if it were focused on the bigger picture, if the administration made clear, for instance, that we would not have a deal unless we dealt with the debt limit that has already been exceeded, i think there was an opportunity for us to get out of the squirrel cage that has trapped us for the west unit -- last few years. i have respect for her efforts. it would not have passed the house if not. she is a valuable ally in adviser to the president. i just think this was an opportunity for us to go bigger and i hope we do not miss an opportunity going forward to
8:12am
change the way we do business. if we cut away the clutter and focus on how to improve government efficiency and tax fairness, it is supported by the majority of the people and could find bipartisan support in congress. host: among the sweeteners, green energy was a big winner. the legislation would also kill part of the all but one affordable care act. it sounds like you agreed with some of the things that made their way in here, but disagree with others. guest: make no mistake, the work that was done enshrined some
8:13am
positive items, and helped with the transition -- and employment insurance, clean energy, but it is no substitute for our taking a creaky, inefficient, and fair tax system and try to broaden it and make it more fair, getting rid of the alternative minimum tax, this bizarre doc fix ritual that we go through every year. this was the time to fix those issues, and i feel it will be harder in the new congress. host: this tweet -- if they would actually read bills before voting on them, there would be no cause for concern about what is in them. guest: our tea party friends came in the vial in that
8:14am
everybody would have 72 hours to read the bill, and i did not say anything less met, but not one of them read the bill. there are some circumstances where there is a lot of boilerplate and complexity with that is not the best use of your time, but doing this at the last minute, and stepping on swung into office -- i a. red de affordable care act, and now they're finding out it is a different -- i surrendered on the affordable care act, and now they're finding out it is a different problem host: texas. -- problem. host: texas. democrat. caller: i have a lot of things to say.
8:15am
because the government had all this time to get this bill passed, boehner, mcconnell, a big lead nothing past -- they will let nothing past. i just lost my job at christmas. all these people talk about obama going to hawaii. this is the most reasonable president we have had in office. the people put him back in office because this man is working for the people. if we had put the other man in, think where we would be? this man wanted to give more money to the rich. my point is this, there are a
8:16am
lot of things going on in congress. if you look back at history, people are taking tax money, going away on vacation, spending this money. we have people calling talking about how they wished they could do this or that, but we have this congress this president, trying to do everything he can come and his hands are tied. host: it sounds like you are a defender of president obama, drawing a comparison between president obama and mitt romney. does president obama have a mandate, this is what i want you to vote for, and democrats -- would you vote for it? guest: the president was clear that he wanted to maintain the
8:17am
quarter of $1 million ceiling. he actually gave ground on that, but it was as clear of a policy statement as possible, and mr. romney, and mr. ryan, i guess posted contrast, although they were fuzzy at the end when mr. romney was reinventing himself, but what he said for most of the campaign was diametrically opposed to what the president has proposed. the american public saw it. the public decided, and it was not just the presidential election. it was overwhelming in the senate, and in the house. there is somewhat of a mandate in anyone's opinion which is one of the reasons why it might have been useful if we had seized on this moment for other areas of
8:18am
reform and getting rid of the continuing cloud of the debt ceiling pegged host: the headline in "new york times ." he got some of what he wanted. did the president lose ground with liberals because of this deal? guest: what will happen going forward will determine the degree of enthusiasm. there are a number of people that listen. the vice president came to our caucus yesterday and made an aggressive presentation about this just been the first step and about things going forward being balanced and that the president would be looking for more reform and efforts in fiscal stability in terms of
8:19am
reducing expenditures and increasing revenue and the fact that he was absolutely, under no circumstances debate the debt ceiling limitation. if the president's -- president were able to follow through on that perspective, that would reassure people that were deeply concerned because they saw this agreement as softening things that had been pretty bright lines in part of the campaign. that is going to be, unfortunately, it will take to do-to-three months of hand-to- and political combat to determine. another area that is concerning to people like me if there are other things we need to do. we need to reform the immigration system. the president is committed to it. it is long over-do, but if we
8:20am
would -- we will be bogged down with more budget drama, it will be harder to deal with gun safety, immigration reform and a range of other things better on the front burner. congressman earl blumenauer -- host: congressman earl blumenauer, representing the third district of portland. rob. bedford, texas. republican. caller: my call is in regards to the estate tax. i just turned 65. my wife and i only sub-s corporation. we have plans to retire. i started on medicare. because of my income, high pay twice what the average is, and
8:21am
we are planning to die, and i understand the state tax will go into effect and our state will have to pay 40%. -- estate have to pay 40%. if it involves less than 2% or 1% of the people, let's stick it to them, but we are real people. i hear the middle class are hard-working people. i work hard, too. i pay my taxes. and enjoy life, -- i enjoy life, giving things to organizations, but i do not enjoy giving my tax money, and for you to say if you are doing well, you have to be doing
8:22am
something wrong, you have to be mean, bad, sitting at home and not working. i worked eight-to-12 hours a day, five days a week, and i want to keep what i have been tested on to my family, but it seems like since i am less than 1%, i do not really matter. host: let's get a response from the congressman, but first look first at what is happening with taxes. that is from "usa today." guest: i think that is an important point. first of all, the only people that claim that folks better doing well that are doing that, this is rhetoric from the right wing fox shows.
8:23am
there is nobody that i know in congress that thinks that, nobody i know has ever said anything like that. that is crazy talk. i have a lot of friends that are successful, and i do not think that somehow the fact that they are successful is something that is not pleasant or a character flaw. the notion that that is the rhetoric, that is just goofy. it is not the case. to revert to the tax rates but we had just a few years ago is somehow sticking it to people is a little bit -- that is not the point at all. the idea here is to be able to have a balanced program. people in the top 1% have had a
8:24am
very significant increase in after-tax income, and having that tax burden increase a little bit is not unrealistic at all. the inheritance tax of $10 million for a family, again, most of the states over $10 million represent appreciated capital. this was an asset that was never taxed once. how much as warren buffett or bill gates paid down their billions of dollars that they are entitled to pass on as they see fit, either to charity, friends or other sources? if we did not have an inheritance tax, most of that would not be taxed at all. a friend of mine that is an
8:25am
estate planner and tax attorney was part of an advisory committee and pointed out that the limits of the $5 million per person, $10 million per family is just the beginning. there are all sorts of techniques used that shield more income from the inheritance tax. i do agree call on one point. one of the things i did not feel comfortable about this proposal is that somehow we can pay for everything america needs as it ages and as it grows by the top 1.5%. those are the people but will pay into this. i think there needs to be a broadening of the base. i think there will be more opportunities to reform the tax, but if we are to meet the needs of the future it will not be singling out the top earners,
8:26am
but it will need to be shared broccoli. i think that will happen over -- broadly. i think that will happen over the next 10 years. we have the most progressive income tax system in the world, and the highest corporate tax, but the base is very narrow. we need to broaden both, reform it, and simplify it. it could david. minnesota. republican line -- host: david. minnesota, republican line. caller: all the problems that arise between democrats and republicans -- term limits. 's republican -- the americans demand term limits, we will have the same -- until americans demand term limits, we will have
8:27am
the same old. guest: that is interesting. look at california, the poster child for term limits. has it reduced the interest of lobbyists? hardly. you have a six-year limit in the california assembly and two four-year term limits in the state senate, and you have turned that legislature, which is after all the legislature for the seventh largest economy in the world, into a big nobody is there to drill down, the end -- big bus station. and nobody is there to drill down, be an expert. in california, you have people cycling through, running for other office, and by any objective measure you increase the role and the influence of special-interest, lobbyists.
8:28am
the work that we do in congress that happens in the california state legislature actually has complexity and deals with balancing a wide variety of interests. it is not particularly easy, if you're going to specialize even in one small area. an example. you have heard about the milk cliff because of the failure to extend the farm bill, there would have been a dramatic increase in milk prices that would revert to a lot of 1949, i would invite any of the viewers to try to understand that little program and how would works and think that somebody is going to drop in here in a matter of weeks and be able to understand that type of complexity times
8:29am
1000. a look at term limits in california, and people can decide whether that has been a great reform or not. i'm inclined to think it was not helpful. hitchcock the -- host: the headline from "usa today." let's hear from jennifer. caller: i am a democrat in a republican state, so i am not very popular down here, but i had to do it will points to make. -- two points to make. the middle class is the real and true job creators. if the 1% in the 2% one to understand how to get wealthier, you have to understand that you need to put more money in the pockets of the middle class because they could buy the products and services said the wealthy people produce.
8:30am
that is just the way -- that the wealthy people produced. that is just the way it is. i am for tax breaks for the middle class. host: jennifer, would you have voted for this legislation that passed the house? caller: i think president obama has been extremely reasonable. the republican party has been unreasonable. host: what you have to sit to our guest, a democrat who voted against it? caller: i disagree, but i believe he is a thoughtful person, so if he felt it was not reasonable, and i really cannot say anything, but i am glad that a deal was done because if it had not been done, the republican party would have loved a lot worse than they look right now -- would have looked a lot worse than they do now. guest: to the larger point, we
8:31am
will not be able to have the united states rebound its economy, to get our sorting, without efforts to make sure that we boost demand, strengthen income of families across the board. it is not us against them in my judgment. we need to invest in rebuilding and renewing america. we have infrastructure that is falling apart. kids should not be graduating with $27,000 on average college debt that they should -- could never discharged in bankruptcy. we should have an opportunity to strengthen everyone by rebuilding, we knew in the country, reforming how we do business -- redoing the country, reforming how we do business. host: we have a conversation on
8:32am
our facebook page. we have had hundreds of commons. a couple that have come in -- paula was oregon politicians. she is a liberal. caroll wants to know why you are reading your bicycle -- .earing your bicycle pin par guest: i write -- ride my bicycle to work every day, and it is something everyone can agree on. host: congressman earl blumenauer, thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: next, we'll hear from mick mulvaney, republican from south
8:33am
carolina, and later on, our spotlight on magazines with the executive editor of "scientific american." >> following last night's house vote on the so-called fiscal cliff bill, new york area lawmakers in both parties in the words of the associated press erupted in anger after learning the house republican leadership decided to allow the current term of congress to end without holding a vote on the aid for super storm city. peter king says he was told by the office of the majority leader eric cantor of virginia that the plans were to avoid a vote. a spokesman for speaker john boehner, michael steele, said the speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month. more reaction from ohio republican congressman steve lott correct. in remarks earlier today he criticize republican colleagues for blocking aid to victims of
8:34am
sandy, calling lawmakers who opposed "charcoal -- chuckleheads." the house appropriations prepared a $27 billion relief package. another storm is impeding the salvage of the grounded ship. the ship went to ground off the coast of alaska. the royal dutch shell rig is with about 140,000 gallons of diesel. the craft appears stable, and there is no sign the release of any product. those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you do not always find many newspaper editors increasing
8:35am
investigative reporting. it is not just economics, but the discomfort that investigative reporting offers in the newsroom because it is troublesome. it is that more than economics. if you ruffle the feathers of somebody popular, those people complain to the editor. we have been fortunate to work for people that were strong and upright in that area. >> the pulitzer prize winning is investigating team donald barlett and james steele will take your calls and tweets. their latest book is "the the trail of the american dream -- of the trail of the american dream." "washington journal" continues.
8:36am
host: congressman mick mulvaney of south carolina. he voted against this deal. why? -- "much time do we have? guest: how much time do we have? i thought the text portion -- the tax portion was good, and i could have voted for it if it was just about the tax rate, but it increased spending and $330 billion over the next 10 years. i do not know how anyone could make the argument is a balanced approach. it raises taxes and spending. host: speaker boehner voted for it. what do you read into his vote
8:37am
and conversations happening of the last couple of days? he felt i do not know. there were some candid -- guest: i do not know. there were some candid discussions. i think there was a lot of healthy discussion. host: on the front page of "the washington post," speaker boehner and leader eric cantor. will we see perhaps a change in speaker? guest: i do not that we will see a change, but their real question is what the next two years -- will the next two years. the previous two years? conservative -- be like the previous two years?
8:38am
spendingposed to cut on the sequestration, but that was delayed. our question as conservatives is when will we start the battle over spending? we waited two years. we're not willing to wait longer. host: "the washington post couple talks about the giveaways, the compromises. guest: people say why do you the compromise more often, and i wish we could hold up that article because the only way we compromise is by borrowing more money. that is how washington has worked, stealing money from our kids. that is what happened. i think it is an excellent point. we struggle with it.
8:39am
it was not a high point for fiscal conservatives. host: does the tea party lose influence in power because of this, and where does it with conservatives like yourself? guest: people talk about the tea party as if it is this thing on equal footing with democrats and republicans. it is different things in different district. in my district is a bipartisan group of small government folks. in other parts of the country it might be something else. i do not think that is the right question. the question is are we still lay center-right -- are we still a center-right party? i disagree with the article that compromise is always the bad thing. there were all lot of bonds that could have voted to did not head
8:40am
of the spending part, and we still would have been accused of compromise. that is okay. host: mick mulvaney, republican of south carolina. let's hear from sharon in aur ora, colorado. caller: good morning. my husband and i are strong democrats, and we could not wait to vote for president obama again, because we loved him dearly, however i have these two comments. i'm upset with the way he is letting republicans run over him. he is there to take care of us, and he has done a good job, but this time the republicans just
8:41am
ran all over him and he was the gentleman. he has nothing to lose. my husband said he should take a couple of those representatives in the back room and give them a black eye because they are doing things in washington the american public is watching. the american public is not coming out on the street and saying what is wrong, sending the same people back to do the same thing over just like in the hoover days. i saw on the news that a congressman was going to retire after 36 years. come on, now. you are dying on the job with old methods. we need fresh blood to pump this country up and make the american people crowd. host: congressman mulvaney is wrapping up his first term, but
8:42am
how would you have voted if you were a member of congress? would you have voted for it or against it? caller: i did not want to go over the cliff. a lot of people need the unemployment check. her center of colorado is one of the few democrats that voted against it. guest: the person who retired i think was vice president joe biden, who was then there more than my entire lifetime. everything i'm reading in the press says the democrats got killed, the republicans got killed. nobody got everything they wanted, but compromise for the sake of compromise is not
8:43am
necessarily a good thing and that is why i voted against it. there were things i liked in the bill, but on balance i could not increase with increases in spending. we increased the deficit with what we did last night. i thought the whole idea here was republicans and democrats were to work together to shrink the deficit. we made the deficit bigger last night. i think it is unfortunate that message has not gone out yet. host: "the washington times, " says obama displeases both sides. would you have been willing to go over the fiscal cliff? guest: yes. at some point, people need to know what their government costs. i did not want to go over the fiscal cliff, but at some point people have to know what their government costs. our taxes are not covering how much money we spend.
8:44am
what we bring in and how much we spend is on this is the debt and deficit. we are not paying for the government that we are getting and unless we continue to steal money from our kids, we have to make a tough choice, are we going to raise taxes, or reduce spending? the media attention on the fiscal cliff made it clear to me that people do not want their taxes to go up. that is why i was willing to go over it, if nothing else, to let people know they're getting something for nothing and it is not helpful. host: this tweet -- congressman, you do realize that you voted to raise my taxes? since you voted against it, middle-class taxes would have gone up.
8:45am
guest: i guess that is one way to look at it. host: florida. jim, republican line. caller: good morning. i do not have so much of a question, but a comment. i feel most of the conversation in washington as about money, and it is more, more, more. they will waste every dime they get. the problem i consider is they have to much money. they do not need more. if we were to update our computer system, we were -- could probably do 60% of our governmental business on a computer and the people around it instead of a bureaucrat. that makes no sense. i have heard only a few words regarding the fact they spend too much money.
8:46am
guest: we do. we spend too much money, and you are right. we do not hear that enough. that is why we got the compromise. in the of people are willing to look the other way of the spending. i understand the people that voted for it, the people that do not want taxes to go up, but the price of doing that was increasing government spending. that was not a balanced approach the president promised us. , one back to dean's point of the things falling through the cracks is that anybody that voted for this boded to raise -- voted to raise taxes on everyone. you're middle class taxes went up because the payroll tax expired. you could look at this any way you want to. few want to look at it as a tax cut or a tax increase, that is
8:47am
fine. i am not saying one side is right or wrong, but spending went up. jim is right. 's more people get the message he seems to have gotten we are not going to fix the problem. as you mentioned, we will see a end to the payroll tax holiday. we'll also see taxes called for americans making more than $400,000. let's go to arkansas. roger. independent. caller: good morning. i have two questions for representative mulvaney. in addition to the specifics,
8:48am
what has been reported on, what all of us know was passed last evening, what was added to the bill that we do not know about, the pork that was added perhaps to garner votes? another question, i would have voted in favor, by the way, and my question for you is can you ever vote for a compromise that includes a tax increase on high- earners, and if so, what is the breaking point? host: thank you, roger. guest: great questions. what was added -- i wish we had more time to talk about this. the senate voted on this after
8:49am
having it for nine minutes. the bill turned out to be over 100 pages long with 96 different provisions. you hear about the big ones that everyone has drawn attention to. the ones that we found yesterday were the continued tax credits, for example, for wind energy, for hollywood, for rum manufacturers. you could see this list of the senators walking up and down the aisle saying what you need in this bill? there are tax giveaways. are they all lot of money? now, but are the indicative of how washington has compromise? yes. we buy votes. you will hear more in the next couple of days about the
8:50am
specific special interest provisions. again, why my against them? the increase in spending. there is not a single provision that reduces spending. can we ever compromise? here is the answer i give to that. i am a fairly conservative person, the fifth the sixth most conservative in the congress. i voted to raise the debt ceiling, what i thought i would never do. i did it because it was part of the cut cap and balance. i'm willing to take difficult votes. we did not fix the problem. we prevented ourselves from going over the fiscal cliff. we dug the hole of the deficit deeper. i could see building for stuff i
8:51am
never thought i would vote for, but it has to fix the problem to host: john -- problem. host: john says the cliff was designed to force congress to act responsibility and it did not work. guest: he is not wrong. caller: i have a few words to say. - -- there is one thing that we actually need to do. these are my opinions. there is camouflage. what i mean by that is we need to cut spending true enough, who is making the sacrifices? we need to pay taxes, of course, because that is how the country will live and sustain itself,
8:52am
but if nobody is willing to make the sacrifice, pulling the wool over the american people's eyes, not addressing the real issues. the federal government has authorize all of these the lucrative contracts for corporations, this is gigantic spending in areas that we need to take a look at. there are a lot of debates about the taxes on the middle class, or people making between $400,000 and $450,000. that does not affect the economy. there are trillions of dollars affecting the economy. who are the ones getting these big-time contracts? guest: it is as frustrating to me as it is to you, ulysses. by the way, thank you for your
8:53am
service. the crony capitalism bothers me as much as it bothers folks in the other party -- giveaways to large corporations austen's me, but you could take all of that -- offends me, but you could take all of that to zero and still be in deficit. you could take every part of the discretionary budget, spend no dollars on it tomorrow and we would still be in deficit. to your point, it will take sacrifice. would you rather pay more taxes or have less spending? those are the only choices you have. we have put off difficult choices by figuring out how to borrow money, which essentially says to our children we will take the money and you will pay it back. i think that is wrong. it is time to have a serious conversation. we missed the opportunity to
8:54am
have that conversation and say either your taxes have to go off, and not taxes on somebody else -- people making $400,000, but everybody. you could tax folks at $250,000 and above, at a 100% rate, and we would still not balance the budget. there are very difficult choices. host: karsten mick mulvaney, republican of south carolina, -- congressman mick mulvaney, republican of south carolina, representing the fifth district of south carolina. he serves on the budget, small business in joint economic committee. chris. ohio. caller: i wanted to comment on the fiscal cliff. what i have seen is the republican party needs to have a
8:55am
clear distinction for the democratic party. the result of the last election proves one thing that barack obama, by any historical standard on the economy had a terrible record, and he bent on a lot of people that were adopted to government programs. as ronald reagan said in 1975, we need clear and old distinctions. but the democrats be the party of the deficits, the big government. we will either resolve the problems, or repeat the mistakes of countries like japan and greece. we will not be able to protect the american people. host: how would you have voted on the fiscal cliff bill? caller: unfortunately, i would have voted no. we need to make this government
8:56am
accountable. we've done 30 years of spending and we never get any resolution. guest: i will ask you a simple question. you are in a swing state. after last night, d.c. a clear distinction between democrats -- do you see a clear distinction between democrats and republicans? caller: some republicans are getting the message, and with all due respect to john boehner, i personally think he does not have the backbone the speaker needs to stand up to the president. president obama has been able to out-maneuver him at every turn. the real discussion should have been tax reform. while barack obama was bringing the tax increases, the republican party should said we need to reform the system, capitalize and get the most revenue, but you have to cut spending. if you raise taxes by 5%, you
8:57am
have to cut spending by 8%. guest: listen, i think the gentleman makes a lot of excellent points. i think it would have been possible last night, libby, to have this vote go exactly the same way it did and have the republican party come out looking pretty good. if we had taken the last eight weeks to talk about spending and tax reform, which could have said we changed the dialogue, talking about spending. we did not get it in this deal, but we could keep it up in the next deal. instead, we let the president talk about tax revenues. that is where we lost the debate. it is not just the vote last night. there was a good reason to vote last night because we locked in
8:58am
the tax rates for the overwhelming majority of the country. that is a win. there's no question about it but the fact that we increased spending, chris is right. we blurred the line between us and them. we like spending, but we just do not like spending when the democrats spend money. until we have the nerve to say we have to stop spending the lines will continue to be blurred between the parties. host: let's look at some of the details in the fiscal cliff legislation, to nearly extending the bush tax cuts currently exth tax cuts.
8:59am
congressman mulvaney, some of those you agree with. guest: sure. like i said, if it were just a tax deal, it would have been much more acceptable to conservatives. host: what do you disagree with? guest: i do not like taxes going up on anyone. i think raising rates at the margins has a negative impact on the economy toward people disagree with that. a better way to get the money would be to close loopholes. something not on the list was the death tax. i'd like to get rid of it could i recognize i do not get everything that i wanted -- rid of it. i recognize i could not get everything i wanted. host: more of those that effect those making over $400,000, or
9:00am
couples making $450,000 -- guest: keep in mind, to regret it says the estate tax goes up from 35%-to-40%, and exempt rate is $10 million. the final terms were much more favorable. this is one of the things that really helps small businesses, particularly farmers. i think that was a good part of the deal.
9:01am
9:02am
9:03am
guest: we decided to take it back out of the draw and look at it new. host: what are you looking to as republican leaders? congressman ryan and senator rubio who's vote do you agree with on this bill and who you disappointed? guest: you don't look to one person. we take a lot of heat in south carolina to looking to senator jim demint. we all get accused of voting the
9:04am
same way he does. no longer the case since he's gone effectively noon today. you look across the board. last night, you could have looked to marco rubio and rand paul and got one answer. i don't think it works like that. you sort of -- you have to make up your own mind. you look to folks for input. paul ryan voted for this bill last night. eric cantor voted against. there were some more conservatives i think against than for it. host: let's hear from darrell in columbus, indiana democrats on the democrats line. caller: i like to comment on why the republican party is in the shape they're in. i have another comment about immigration both of these have to do why i would have voted against this fiscal cliff.
9:05am
i think that the vote no should have been taken back when we had this problem with the banks. i think that's when they should have voted no. i don't think we would be in this shape now if that happened. the republican party for one thing, we can see why we should not have a third party. when they were running their nominations for the republican presidency, what saw what a third party can do which i'm talking about the tea party. the republican parties on its way down then. but after they got their nomination, the tea party basically took over the republican party and they went about as far right as thick get, they went off the page. that's what's happening to them.
9:06am
some of the money can be fixed on our taxes is definitely through this immigration problem. i can speak for my city only but i understand, i have relatives in texas and they have told me they have recently noticed the same problem. the companies, in fact, in our city, hire illegal immigrants. they do not take federal taxes out of their checks. i have brought this up to some of the state representatives here in this state and to other people labor relations and i.c.e. nothing is being done. i've been told they can do nothing. i know why the state doesn't do anything because they take state taxes out. these companies, threaten the cities that oh well, you better not bring i.c.e. in here, you better not bother us because if
9:07am
you do, we'll pull our factory out, you'll shut us down. you won't get your tax money. the state and counties get their tax money. the federal government does not get any money from these illegals. host: okay, let's go to congressman mulvaney. >> couple different things to my republican friends who don't like the tea party much. i would remind them the reason we're in the majority because of tea party in 2010. love them and hate them, i don't care, they are the reason that we're in the majority of the house. they're the reason that john boehner is the speaker of the house. if we forget that, we likely will lose that majority. when you say darrell the tea party went off the page, we want to balance the budget. if that's off the page, we might as well give up and go home. we want the government to spend what it takes in. if that really is off the page, if that is so far right wing
9:08am
crazy politics, then we might as well give up and go home that's the end of it. if you can't acknowledge the government can't spend more it takes in, there's no reason to discuss it. i hope we get a change to do immigration this year. there's a lot of talk about perhaps washington doesn't have the ability to do anything big. they don't ability to do grand bargains and so forth. i don't necessarily think that's the case. taxes on spending that certainly looks to be the case. i feel like there are sole energy, looking at immigration reform legal immigration reform. i do think there's a chance to take that up. i hope that the result of this that prevent us from doing that. host: in the "washington journal," we see the headline, immigration tops washington with, president obama the 2013
9:09am
to do list topped by debt, immigration and iran. guest: that's one of the things that grew out of the election. we start to hear from our folks, maybe it's time to look at imembrace policy -- immigration policy and deal with it. host: we've already got 600 comments about the fiscal cliff deal. we hear couple folks who agree with you. angela said they cuff cut spending. jeremy said fiscal cliff -- guest: we've got the debt ceiling coming up. we got government shut down in march. if you like brinkmanship this will be your year. host: sequestration hasn't been
9:10am
worked point what are your thoughts as sequestration allow to happen. it will cut a lot of programs and republicans expressed concern about. guest: i didn't like the nature of the cuts. i thought they were poorly done. do i think they would have a negative impact on defense. i thought the house did a good job last year of offering a replacement, a different plan for cutting not only the same amount of money but more money actually, significantly more money. i do think it's important that we do cut the spending. the only worse than cutting defense is not cutting anything, which is effectively what we did last night, had we put off for two months. even oh -- keep in mind are the sequester cuts is what we promised you that we will cut spending one dollar every dollar increase. that was suppose to be the cut that's kicked in two days ago.
9:11am
that didn't happen. we have not cut spending one dollar since we increased the debt ceiling deal in august of 2011. here we are again getting ready to have the same debate about raising the debt ceiling again. we cannot cut spending that was one of the frustrating parts. we have to acknowledge we can't cut spending. we're so afraid of these cuts -- how much is it by the way? it's 110 110 -- $110 billion out of a budget that's $3,800,000,000,000. we were trying to cut $110 billion out of it. $101 out of $3800. if you can't do that, what are your chances of balancing the budget. disappointing outcome. host: republican on line. caller: i got a question to
9:12am
representative there. how much money did they make a year and can they live on less than a thousand dollars a month? like my wife and i are doing on handicap and disable? this budget plan could have been passed last year and wait until this time to get over the cliff where nobody can do nothing and sit back and worry about what's going on. can you, yourself, live on thousand dollars a month and pay your utilities, food and keep your family can clothes on your back? guest: pretty straightforward answer. we make $174,000 a year, no i can't live on a thousand dollars a month? we could have taken this up ten years ago.
9:13am
remember, this is expiration of the bush tax cuts we've known this was coming. yet we put it off for the last minute. i have three seventh graders and my wife and i have triplets. at home the kids don't do their homework until the day before the project is due. bringing the military home i have to agree with you. i think there's a growing concern within the republican party within the most conservative wings of the republican party including the tea party people decried here today, thinking that it is time to reconsider our overseas policies and military expansion policy. that's a longer discussion for another day. host: legislation that passed the house last night presents $900 automatic pay hike for members of congress. that's from the huffing post. guest: the president tried to give it to us. we didn't know he can do that.
9:14am
congress gets a raise every single year automatically unless it votes not to. we have vote, properly so not to give ourselves those automatic raises and we have not received those raises. the president said he want to give it to us. we didn't they he could do that. evidently he could. we worked out a separate bill and part of the compromise last night is for us not to take that. host: let's hear from michael. caller: good morning. congressman mulvaney, i agree with much of what you say and think everyone does. i think the great trick, great fraud that's been perpetrated on the american people is the ability to wealthy corporation
9:15am
to convert tax money into personal money. the way that work is through war. war is a massive fraud, from my perspective. we didn't have to invade iraq. don't have to be in afghanistan. i agree with you that it's time to bring the troops home but it was time never to send them there to lose these precious lives and the victims of the people we kill in drone strikes. i would suggest we back off from war from the prosecution of war. we emulate china take care of your own people, build your economy, educate your population and become powerful and strong again. that's my comments. guest: to your last point, emulate china. i'm roman catholic, i don't get to do that in china.
9:16am
i don't have any freedom of speech in china, i don't have any economic freedom in china. i probably don't own my own house and if i do the government can take it away. i hear what you're saying and it's easy to look at other countries they're doing well economically and say let's copy them. it's interesting most of the world looks at us and say let's copy the united states. i got to disagree with you on that one sir. i will take the difficulties of living in this country in exchange for the freedoms related to that. host: the callers. put all the spending on the democrats is ludicrous. he remembers president george w. bush. guest: anybody here hear me blame the democrats for spending. look it started under reagan. the only person to pay down the deficit the clinton administration.
9:17am
the bottom line is both parties are responsible. both parties are complicit in this. let's get beyond that. laying blame is not going to solve it. question is how are we going to fix it. host: congressman mick mulvaney republican from south carolina. he'll be sworn in second term tomorrow. appreciate your time. coming up next, spot light on magazine segment for look into future in the role of technology will play in the 5100 in 150 years. first news update from c-span radio. >> there's no word yet on when president obama will sign the bill that avoids the fiscal cliff after congress passed the bill last night, the president left for hawaii. the president can sign the bill remotely using a machine called an auto pen or the bill will be
9:18am
flown to hawaii for his signature. paychecks won't be increasing now now that congress averted the fiscal cliff. the bill passed by congress does not include extending a social security payroll tax cut at the end of last year so workers will now be pay being 2% more in social security taxes. wall street futures risen sharply today. dow jones industrial futures are up 200 points. asian marks finished higher today as well as european markets their up as well. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you don't always find many in the area embracing investigative reporting. the point we've seen over the years it's not just economics, it's the discomfort that investigative reporting often causes in the newsroom. because it's troublesome, it's that more than the economics. if you're going to roughly the
9:19am
feathers of somebody powerful that gets those people running in to complain to the publisher. just let the chips fall where they may. >> pulitzer prize winner donald barnett and james steele will take your call on e-mail and tweet. the pair will began their collaborative work in the 1970s. the latest the betrayal of the american dream. watch live on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: it's our spot light on magazine segment on wednesday. we look at an article or issue in a magazine. joining us this morning is fred guterl. scientific american executive
9:20am
editor. he's talking about piece looking at the world will be like in 150 years in the role of science and technology will play in our future. thanks so much for being with us from new york city today. guest: thanks for having me. happy new year. host: why look into the future? guest: you know, the world as we know, the world did not end on december 21st. so, i think this is really good time to look -- we've been all sort of focused on that date, not all of us, some of us. this is a good time to look into the future. we have a very popular department that we do every month called 50 and 100 and 150 years ago. this is where we go back into the archives of scientific american and we pick out things that people were writing and a lot of things people were writing were predictions about what the future would bring.
9:21am
we thought that we would turn it on its head and actually just do a whole package of articles in our january issue which is out on newsstands now. it looks at what could happen scientifically, technologically in the next 50, 100 and 150 years. host: you look at things like drone. also nuclear issues. nuclear war happen and then the state animals where we see more zoos. you look at things like global warming. how do you do it? how do you take a stab at guessing intelligently what things will be like in the future? guest: well, we do this all the time. we talk about technology and science that is cutting edge. we're looking at thing that are in the lab, that are on the drawing board and these from
9:22am
things that could -- these are things that could lead to real game changing in the future. we do this all the time. what we did this time, we got a little bit more fanciful with it. we decided to really sort of do a thought experiment and think about what life would be like if -- when some of the technology we write about now and some of the issues we grapple out now play out. for example, you mentioned drone. a drone technology is something that's happening now where we read about it in the military use of drones and even law enforcement officials are starting to consider using drones. but what we -- most people haven't connected drone technology to the notion of flying cars. if you think about a flying car, you think about everyone having
9:23am
a flying car and we our air traffic control systems can't even manage airplanes how are we going to manage cars? if you consider using drone technology where the person flying the car is not doing the flying but rather you're using all of these technologies of artificial intelligence and you're having some kind of centralized control that controls all the traffic, then you could envision -- suddenly it seems to be within our grasp to have flying cars in every driveway. it's one of futuristic jetson like things. host: the piecen drones said this. the 2010 advanced project agency to build a four person vehicle
9:24am
capable of vertical takeoff and landing essentially a passenger carrying drone that a particular soldier with no aviation background can operate even more existing drone technology. so, how much do you look to current advancements and development to look ahead to the future? guest: well, -- i can remember when i was starting out as a science writer back in the 1980s interviewing bob khan who was one of the fathers of the internet. i remember he was seem like an interesting guy and he was talking about this cookie idea of wiring the world and creating this internet of internet and network of networks. low and behold that turned into the internet and changed all of our lives. this project, who knows. it could be the next -- it could
9:25am
be the beginning of flying cars. it starts out military technology. it builds on a technology that we know that's already in the field, drones. it builds on it to have more capability and that could filter out into the commercial world. that d.a.r.p.a. program could be the beginning of flying cars the way bob khan's network of networks program was beginning of the internet. host: fred guterl from scientific american democrat can call us at 202-737-0001. republicans can call 202-737-0002 and independent callers -- first caller is steve from buffalo, new york, democrats line. hi steve. caller: good morning.
9:26am
i am an avid reader of scientific american. i'm dismayed into the future without addressing present problem which is connection to the massive world. we have policy makers in our congress, many of whom believe the earth is 5000 years old. i like to know how scientific american could first bring about a higher degree of scientific literacy so we can understand man's place in the biological continuum before we begin talking about a future which may never be. this connection from the natural world has even skewed our views, policy makers views of fiscal reality. they believe you can grow on a finite planet with finite natural resources. of courser you can't do that.
9:27am
host: what's your response? guest: i didn't quite hear a question but i'll respond anyway. i'm glad you bring that up steve. actually, we cover these issues all the time. if you want to remain literate on these issues, reading "scientific american" would be a good thing to do. in this package on the future, we address our disconnection from nature in two pieces. one piece, we have thomas lovejoy who is a biologist and conservationist. he was credited with coining the term, "biodiversitity." he did a study for jimmy carter. it was a study of species law. in this study, he found -- he
9:28am
predicted that there would be a 15% to 20% loss in species by the year 2000. we had him revisit that and since he's the one -- he's the father of this field. we had him -- we asked him, where do things stand now and where are they headed? sadly, he said that we're basically on track with what he had predicted. there are more than 40% amphibians species facing extinction now. something like bird species and 25% of mammal pieces. in 100 years there may be no such thing as tigers and lions. this is a very sad story. we addressed it head on in here. think it's a thoughtful piece he's written. we also have a piece by david
9:29am
keith, who is a harvard scientist and he has done a lot of work in geoengineering. geoengineering is this technology for cooling the atmosphere artificially by spraying aersols and things like that up in the upper atmosphere. he talked about three different scenarios that could happen involving geoengineering. we tend to think of it -- we tend to get the way we think about these things. one of the scenarios he played out, it's possible that people go along, we just don't really think too much about the environment. we don't think much about the climate. we could have a situation where carbon emissions really get out of control.
9:30am
geoengineering would become something that you would try to use in an act of desperation. that's just one of the things that we explore. i'm glad you brought that up. what you're saying is very important. host: fred guterl, do you feel like there's a distaupian mood. we're looking at the the possibility of an engineered plan and loss of nature. you also had a piece in here about nuclear war. the nuclear war will erupt in the future. would that bring in nuclear arms race? is it unfortunate look at the future? guest: well, i would say there is some disstopic aspects of this. it's hard to look at nuclear weapons and be curious about it. this story has a happy ending. this story, the one you
9:31am
mentioned, was written by ron rosenbound. he talks about basically, he's exploring what will it take eventually to eliminate nuclear weapons. there are thousands of them that are still hanging around from the cold war days. and iran and pakistan, other countries have acquired them and we live with them and we tend not to think about them too much. what would it take to get rid of them? the thesis he put out in this, it's guy -- goats doing take some disaster or mishaps before the world really wakes up and says we really need to do something about this. in his fantasy and it really is just a fantasy, it's a thought
9:32am
experiment, not a prediction. in 20 or 25 years, there someone in the pakistan in that ongoing conflict will trigger a nuclear bomb which will set off kind of quasi nuclear winter and do damage to the power gid. when you set off a nuclear bomb, you cause an electromagnetic pulse which can damage power grid. as you know, power grids are essential. significant damage to power grids that can cause a lot of casualties. in his scenario, some small, some minor mishaps occurs. after that people think, gee, this is really serious and we need to get rid of these
9:33am
weapons. at the end of his piece the world is a safer place. the problems of the world are tough. they're not always cheery to contemplate. host: fred guterl he was "newsweek" technology editor writing packages and special things like global health, climate change and energy and biotech. he also taught science writing at princeton. it's our spot light on magazine seg the. next up in is matt on republican line. hi matt on republican line. caller: federal government i think you're sugarcoating this drone thing into equate it to the future of a flying car. come on, the drones are having a real serious impact on america
9:34am
and how the world looks at america. it's a little too sneaky for me. guest: okay. you're advocating making everything into a dystopia. i think you're right, there are problems with drones. there are privacy issues. there are questions how we're going to regulate and control the world where drones are small as bees and you can buy them at radioshack and send them into your neighbor's yard. there are a lot of issues. we didn't tackle all the issues concerning drones. but we do in other articles, we have discussed military implications of drones. we've done articles on the privacy implications of drone and where the technology is going. we were just looking at one. for this issue, we were just
9:35am
looking at one potential impact of this technology which could be the idea that the notion of having autonomous vehicle that's are controlled centrally could be a solution to the flying car problem. which i think is kind of cool. host: fred guterl one of our followers twitter writes, how long will we live in the future and one of the piece in the scientific america is called cures that helps up. what is ricky lewis, the author of this piece envision for therapy and what it means for longevity. guest: it's interesting, gene therapy is a technology that had tough time. it's had unintended trial. it had unintended effects. it triggered cancer in one case, it triggered immune response in
9:36am
another case. there was a bit of a falling back and reconsidering going on. scientists have been working on it and they -- one of the reasons they haven't given up on it is because it has a potential to be a very precise tool for delivering -- for solving genetic problems in fully grown adults. in this article, we sort of made that point that we've got technologies that are getting more and more powerful and cheaper for taking a person's genome that is all your dna and sequencing it and looking at
9:37am
what genes you got for certain kinds of diseases. if we can match -- if we can take this predictive power, which is still being developed, and come up with a therapy that can target genetic disorders, this will be a very powerful thing. there are a lot of scientist now who are optimistic that gene therapy will be able to overcome the problem its had in the past. the problems of cancer and immuned deficiency responses and if that happens, it's not a done deal, if they manage to get over that hurdle, there are a lot of diseases that could be addressed. you could open up treatment for thousands of diseases.
9:38am
some of them kind of not just single gene diseases but complex diseases. host: fred guterl scientific american, the cover story is 50, 100 and 150 years the future of science. catherine is up next on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have two comments. i find fascinating these machines that are called replicatetors. they will transform our society. i think it will transform manufacturing and used to be the workers on the assembly line and then robots and entering the world of rep -- rep --
9:39am
replicatetors. they already use them for mouth dentures. people are fooling around with making guns. people are fooling around to make them illegally we have to anticipate law that's will be needed along with different new technologies in our future. i just like to hear your comment. hawk. host: fred guterl nrp looked ahead to the year, 3d printers and wired glasses the tech year ahead, our caller catherine called the replicatetors, which is the star trek term for it. how do you see them? guest: he's are really interesting technologies. basically it's a way to start --
9:40am
basically it's just information and build with a machine that's kind of like a printer. build a three dimensional object so you could basically print out a gun or something, a machine part. i think -- this is going to have a big impact on manufacturing. i think it will -- you should stay tuned because we're actually preparing a look at this down the road. 3d printing i think will open up a lot of possibilities for manufacturing also for abuse too i suppose. every technology is subject to abuse. i think when it comes to guns, i think it's so easy to get a gun now, i think using a 3d printer
9:41am
is kind of guilding a lily a little bit. i'm not too worried about that aspect of it. it is a technology that seems to be coming of age. host: jim tweets in, genetically modified human would they need same resistance that gmo food seen? guest: i think they'll need more resistance. i don't know anyone who advocates genetic germ line modification. we actually, in this package we do address it obliquely. we have a really provocative piece on how would we plan to colonize outer space. there are a lot of programs now that seem to be focused on mars.
9:42am
when you think about going to mars, it's not really like the moon. you can't get there in a couple days and get back. you have to live out there. you have to be out there for months or year. then you start thinking about the idea of well, should we build space stations that find these sweet spots where gravity keep them suspended in one spot. if we did that would people live there? what if eventually we decided to build kind of a space ark a big ship that can go out possibly beyond the solar system to a trip that spans many generations. when we looked at this, one of the possibilities that we
9:43am
discussed was the possibility of a long term space voyage over many generations affecting how humans evolve. either you can imagine the conditions in a along term space voyage being very different from living on earth, the graverty would be different. the kind of atmosphere you breathe, the pressure you lived under would be different. all of that would affect things like birth and radiation would affect -- could possibly affect the fitness natural selection mechanism that could affect evolution. the question that we ask though, getting to your point was, would this eventually -- if you humans -- if we did spend people off into long voyage, would they
9:44am
eventually change so much you would have to consider them no longer homo sapiens. the answer that we came up with was probably not. the most likely, what more likely would be that humans on a space voyage would perhaps choose to make changes in their make-up, their genetic make-up that would better suit them to life in outer space. we're getting very far away from when we talk about drumline engineering, the role and ethical problems with that. we're talking about that here on earth. what i'm talking about, what would we do 500 years from now
9:45am
on a spaceship. host: the piece in the scientific american, says, we cannot prediction. we're looking at our spot light on magazine segment, scientific american piece looking at future of science. anthony is up next from sterlings michigan on democrats line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: thanks for c-span and i watch you all the time. happy new year to libby and fred. i tried to stay current with the magazine. you mentioned the drone, similarly unmanned area vehicle and also they had these contest where you got unmanned car, motor vehicle on the ground.
9:46am
i can envision flying cars myself enable it like the unmanned cars on the ground, they would have to design them where they avoid obstacles and maneuver. my question for you is, i was wondering kind of referring to star trek concept, with the transporting the matter, the holograms where they would transport it, that's any question to you. have you witnessed any type of research in that area? guest: the short answer is no. i think transporters are really one of those things where we all really want. but we're not going to get any time soon. i think that you'd face the philosophical problem if you
9:47am
were to take apart your body, molecule by molecule and then record the information about how you're built and you sent that information somewhere and you then you somehow rebuilt yourself, kind of like a 3d printer. you'd face the problem do you exist or kill yourself or made a copy of yourself. there's that problem. i think the technological problem making a transporter are just so huge that i just don't think -- i just haven't heard anything about someone working on it. you'd love to have one. host: we can have you here in the studio in washington d.c. if we had a transporters instead of new york city.
9:48am
guest: exactly. i started out in triple e spectrum. host: i look forward to the day when i don't need technology to earn money and can unplug and go back to nature. ed reacher has a piece called -- he does a roundup of prophets of technology say about tomorrow. what does the future say about computers? guest: it's interesting. we asked ed to go out infant out -- and find out what computers will be like. he came back and said gosh, nobody knows. what we thought was really entertaining though is how people reacted to the question and we talked -- ed has access to some of the smartest people
9:49am
in computing. people really at the forefront of this, this whole revolution in the past 20 or 30 years. the consensus i suppose that came out is that computers will be around but we might not think about them as computers. we may not even see them. they may not be digital. they may be analogue so they may not break the world up into digital pieces and crunch them but they may just sort of spring more organically out abled with lot more power than what we have now. i think the consensus also, they'll be more closely connected to the human mind. so, you know, i guess what that means is we won't sit which and type into keyboards. there will be some kind of
9:50am
thought link or something. we're already beginning to see that with prosthesis where scientists are finding ways of linking a robotic arm to the areas in the brain that control limb movements so you can just by reaching your arm, if you don't have an arm, you have a robotic arm instead, you can control this robotic arm the way you control your arm with the same mental activity. this is happening. this is where it's going pop it's very -- happening and it's going. it's hard to say what will be ipad version 990 look like. it won't like like a ipad or pc. host: next call is brad from
9:51am
dallas, texas, hi brad. caller: i don't have too much of type of outlook like most callers. i was curious about this outlook on what technology might be bringing for some relief in our economy. like fracking for example, the boom there and social media, google glasses i've heard of, more heads up display technology i've been reading a lot about. like medical drones and things like that go into dangerous areas. just curious what's your outlook, what did you guys find out. any kind of emerging technology that could have a pretty significant effect on our economy? guest: well, that's a really good question. if i had a really good answer, i
9:52am
probably would be sitting at the top of some tower now. we see a lot of things -- the thing about emerging technology, you can never tell which ones are going to go somewhere and which ones are going to run intos problems and fizzle out. all i can really say, there is a lot of innovation going on and there are a lot of technologies that appear to be very exciting. drones is one of them. you mentioned medical advances. we're seeing all sorts of things in manufacturing. there's a program now to make super computers available to
9:53am
small manufacturers in the midwest which i find kind of exciting. a lot of these software design tool, big companies like boeing have to design their very expensive high-tech products are being pushed down now to the small business person who manufactures auto part or whatever. they've gotten those tools that will allow them to design products low overhead and fansty high-tech products on a shoe string. i think that could have kind of a short term effect on the economy. a lot of technologies having negative effect on the economy. things like financial modeling
9:54am
is really a double edged sword. we've seen a lot of abuses of computer modeling in the finance industry and think that seems to continue. that's not a good sign. there's stuff all over the place. is there any particular you want to hear about? host: we've lost him. we've move on to the next caller. jay is up from east hamden, connecticut. welcome jay. caller: good morning. i like to ask fred a question. how do we plan on dealing with syndromes of -- when we think of
9:55am
drones and like they use in warfare and so forth, they are thought more of like a killer bee syndrome. we can't handle the killer bee syndrome in our own current life. you talk about the nuclear problem and that seems to be very similar to when humans were first in existence and they had to learn to live with lions and so forth. these analogies are things that seem to be need to be dealt with. they seem to be very basic in a lot of ways.
9:56am
guest: i think what you're asking about is the kind of more unintended effect in technology. killer bees, we are as a species, we're making having a big impact on the planet and we're causing disruptions. we get unintended consequences. you mentioned killer bees, the bigger problem is the die-off in some honey bees, which is happening and has been a big problem in agriculture. i wrote a book which is just out this year call "the fate of the species" which deals with a lot of this. the whole question of the effect we're having on planet what we
9:57am
do about it. i think, drone technology, one of the things you could do with drone technology is you could make little artificial honey bees. you could make tiny little robotic bees go out and pollinate your field. we're going down this task where we're more and more reliant on technology for our existence. this has caused some negative effects. host: touching on that -- guest: but also hold seeds to solution too. host: touching on that fred guterl one of our followers on twitter joe. would people be happier in the future? guest: well, i think humans are very adaptable. we tend to adapt to whatever
9:58am
circumstances we find ourselves in. if you inherit a million dollars, you'll feel really good for a while and you will settle back into some state of sort of middle state. if you lose your lifesavings, you'll be depressed for a while. i think we will be human in the future and we'll be happy and unhappy. host: did you get a sense of how technology factors into that? as you look to the future, was there any kind of barometer or that science and technology bring to the future? guest: one of the ways that science and technology will hopefully make people happier is
9:59am
by raising standards of living. i think -- when you're poor and you can't get enough to eat, then you're not happy. i think that one of the big success stories of the 20th century was the green revolution which brought food and to a lot of parts of the world, lot of people in the world couldn't get enough. i think that what we're going to see, i hope that we will see is another green revolution that allows us to continue feeding the world and doing a better job feeding the world than we do now and helps us adapt to a world that's changing. host: we have to leave it there. guest: a direct effect on

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)